Since I've grown in the countryside, surrounded by all the forests and hills, I really find the cosmopolitan life I've there more exciting.

It may change overtime, sure, but at least I will never have to complain about having lost my time commuting.

In theory? They can coexist. If you want density, move to a dense city.

In reality? Activists and developers are constantly pushing to upzone and pave over everything in sight.

You’re not taking school taxes and costs into consideration.

In my school district, they spend $18,211 per student each year. Average school taxes per house are $8,100.

So a house with 1 child costs $10,111 per year. But the average house with children has 2.1 kids costing over $30,000 more than is paid in.

This is a very common problem and why development, especially of larger homes (with likely more children) is a net drain on the local tax base.

True, but doesn't seem relevant to the discussion. GP said homes pay as much in taxes as they receive in services.

I disputed that by pointing out that even with very large homes, the people in the home receive far more educational services than their taxes pay for.

Your response to that is to say children need education?

That somehow is because they tax people that don't have kids in school. In fact, municipalities can nudge this.

Approve a 55+ community and it will give the community a net tax benefit. Same thing with a condo community. But approve a plan for a community of single family homes with 4+ bedrooms and you will have a huge drain on the tax base literally forever.